100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Have faith in science | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 09/24/08 06:56 AM
|
|
NP, I totally agree, let me know when you can refine your spiritual data to a degree that gives you a threshold of error of 1X10^-10 or so.
Then Id be happy to believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 09/24/08 07:52 AM
|
|
To me, discounting one’s own eyewitness account as evidence is about as clear an example as I could ever come up with of depending on some outside agent to make the determination as to what conclusion to reach. But I guess I see what you’re saying. (I’m glad I said “seems”.) Personally, I can’t even imagine having an experience like that without coming to any conclusion whatsoever as to its nature. So I naturally assumed that you had some opinion one way or the other. My mistake for making that assumption. 
But why would the acceptance of delusion as an explanation be considered to be 'discounting' one's own experience? Are you suggesting that it's impossible to 'experience' delusion? 
Abra. The experience itself is just an experience or a perception of the mind. Calling it "real or delusional" is more like calling it "good or bad" I would think. Yes you can certainly experience a "delusion." It is certainly not "reality as we know it" to have out of body experiences, but I would not call these experiences unnatural or delusional but that is because I believe them to be a natural occurrence. But "delusions," to me, are not natural occurrences. They are malfunctions. So for me, there is a difference and I make the decision what that difference is. I don't listen to scientific conjecture to make my determination on what is real and purposeful for me and my perception of reality. Did you ever see that movie "A Beautiful Mind"? What he saw was delusions but he learned to live with them and function in the real world, ignoring his delusions. He decided they were not real and served no purpose for him in the physical world. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
fadeawaybaby
on
Wed 09/24/08 08:51 AM
|
|
I think if there was no religion there would be no war. religions seperate people more then they bring people together. I believe in a higher power but I dont devote my life to a man made religion. Science has many answers but it doesnt have them all. Not yet anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
fadeawaybaby
on
Wed 09/24/08 08:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do we not accept “scientific” explanations for phenomenon as “fact”, even though those explanations are based on unproven (and often unprovable) theories??? So how then, is an acceptance of a “scientific” explanation any different from acceptance of a “spiritual” explanation for any phenomenon? (e.g. OBE, NDE, RV, et al) Isn’t it all just a matter of which “primary assumptions” you wish to believe in/agree with? Just something to think about. Having spent the bulk of my life studying and participating in the sciences I would have to disagree with you. You make is sound like science is just a bunch of guesses that could be wrong. I personally think that is an extremely naive view to take. Science dicovered radio waves and how to use an manipulate them. We use radio all the time. Is that nothing a mere speculation? Ask the Japanese who live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the atom bomb was just speculation. What about nuclear power generators? Are they just speculation too? I think science has proven itself through technology. The predictions of Albert Einstein's 'Theory' of Relativity have been proven to be real properties of the universe. Time really does dilate and the effects can be measured. In fact, they are observed to be the case in particle accelerators all the time. The predictions of quantum mechanics have also been observed to be the true nature of the universe. Is that mere speculation? How anyone can compare science with religion is beyond me. There is nothing in the Bible that has been shown to be true. On the contrary the things that it teaches have been shown to not be true. Jesus said that anything we ask in prayer and believe we will recieve. Well there are many people who believe in Jesus and who prayed for droughts to end, or storms to subside or change their course. It doesn't appear to be working. Either Jesus lied, or no one knows how to pray properly. It doesn't really matter which explanation you choose to believe, the bottom line is that it hasn't panned out. I don't see any comparison at all between religion and science. Science has proven itself. Religion has not. The difference is pretty vivid if you ask me. To compare science with religion is truly a joke Skyhook. I'm really surprised that you would even suggest such a thing to be quite honest about it. Also, science and religion aren't even on the same level. Science is based on investigation, experiment, evidence, experience, and even the actual measurement or construction of the results. Religion is based entirely on faith. A belief in things that are fundamentally unprovable. They aren't even in the same ballpark much less playing the same game. AMEN!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me, discounting one’s own eyewitness account as evidence is about as clear an example as I could ever come up with of depending on some outside agent to make the determination as to what conclusion to reach.
But why would the acceptance of delusion as an explanation be considered to be 'discounting' one's own experience?
But I guess I see what you’re saying. (I’m glad I said “seems”.) Personally, I can’t even imagine having an experience like that without coming to any conclusion whatsoever as to its nature. So I naturally assumed that you had some opinion one way or the other. My mistake for making that assumption.
Are you suggesting that it's impossible to 'experience' delusion? What I was referring to was that you said that you “did not have enough evidence” and that you “made no conclusion”. Whether or not you draw a conclusion about it, your eyewitness account is evidence that something happened. I interpreted your refusal to draw any conclusion as discounting that eyewitness account as evidence of anything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are partially correct here. The difference between the two lies not in what can be proven as an absolute - but on the stated Premises. It has nothing to do with the ability to prove either one, but on the capacity to accept the Premises established. When two or more agree on the premise - the truth of "proof" can be established. However - it is only true in light of the established premise. This goes for Science - religion - philosophy.... In this way - all truth's are essentially subjective. I would have to passionately disagree with you on this one Eljay. It has much more to do than with just agreeing on the premises. In the case of religion based on doctrine (in particular the Bible), Even if I agree with the premises I still see it as being logically inconsistent and in self-contradiction. Just accepting the premises aren't enough. If I accept the premise that God is all-wise, and all-merciful, and then I read in the same doctrine that this God is asking people to stone sinners to death I have to say that this religious doctine is tramping all over it's very own premises. Just because I agree with your premisese doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with everything you say after that. On the contrary if you say something that flies in the face of one of your premises I'm going to object and point out the inconsistency. From my point of view agreeing on premises isn't going to help with the Bible unless you start with the premise that what's about to follow does not need to make any sense whatsoever. But starting with a premise like that isn't even rational. See - here is a perfect example of the point I am making. You have omitted that the God of the bible is also a JUST one, and a Rightious one. Therefore - you see biblical logic and the behavior of God as flawed. This brings me to te point that I state over and over again. The biblical God you describe does NOT EXIST. You are forever falling short of your premises of defining the biblical God, and will forever continue to do so - because you prefer to stick to your premises - derived from Pretext -rather than bother to determine the premises that are established by Context. This is why nothing you have to say on the subject of the God of the bible is worth the time you take in writing it. Until you can establish a premise of God through context - your idea's are unacceptable, because your premise's are unacceptable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this quote Krimsa. A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936: I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. Albert Einstein The other option is that non-physical things are not "natural" and thus are determined by other laws, which to me seems infinitely more reasonable. (Of course there is the third option that all is physical and non-physical things do not, in fact, exist at all. But allowing that option requires there to be the fourth option that all things are non-physical and the physical does not, in fact, exist at all. But those two are hardly even worth discussing.) When I read the comment and acknowledge the audience for which it was originally intended, an 11 year old child, then I would tend to believe that what he is referring to in your highlighted sentence is the natural world which is governed by the physical laws of nature. He goes on to further elaborate that for a scientist conducting his research, prayer to a supernatural being would not be beneficial nor would it be an effective approach to take because something that is outside of the realm of nature can not have a determinate impact on the physical world. That is how I interpreted the comment but I could be wrong. I apologize for posting it as it probably is not really addressing the topic but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. So if we take, for example, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research into Remote Perception. We have scientific research, which effectively proves that Remote Perception does exists. But the phenomenon of Remote Perception directly contradicts existing physical laws. So my conclusion is that there must be Other Laws that govern Remote Perception. And since Remote Perception involves some interaction with the physical universe, but physical universe laws do not govern Remote Perception, then the laws of the physical universe must be subordinate to those Other Laws. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this quote Krimsa. A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936: I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. Albert Einstein The other option is that non-physical things are not "natural" and thus are determined by other laws, which to me seems infinitely more reasonable. (Of course there is the third option that all is physical and non-physical things do not, in fact, exist at all. But allowing that option requires there to be the fourth option that all things are non-physical and the physical does not, in fact, exist at all. But those two are hardly even worth discussing.) When I read the comment and acknowledge the audience for which it was originally intended, an 11 year old child, then I would tend to believe that what he is referring to in your highlighted sentence is the natural world which is governed by the physical laws of nature. He goes on to further elaborate that for a scientist conducting his research, prayer to a supernatural being would not be beneficial nor would it be an effective approach to take because something that is outside of the realm of nature can not have a determinate impact on the physical world. That is how I interpreted the comment but I could be wrong. I apologize for posting it as it probably is not really addressing the topic but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. So if we take, for example, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research into Remote Perception. We have scientific research, which effectively proves that Remote Perception does exists. But the phenomenon of Remote Perception directly contradicts existing physical laws. So my conclusion is that there must be Other Laws that govern Remote Perception. And since Remote Perception involves some interaction with the physical universe, but physical universe laws do not govern Remote Perception, then the laws of the physical universe must be subordinate to those Other Laws. I think you might be taking for granted that we have clearly established anything close to credible evidence that remote perception is in fact a reality. I realize you believe it is factual but not everyone accepts this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am still somewhat skeptical as I feel any intelligent person feels compelled to be to some extent. That is only reasonable. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that would revolutionize the world were it concluded to be real and controlled on some level, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence. I would also require it be more tangible and consistent. In fact a person who could utilize this ability at will and demonstrate it. That is what I need and require for myself personally. I dont know if I am just being unrealistic though. I dont think so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this quote Krimsa. A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936: I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. Albert Einstein The other option is that non-physical things are not "natural" and thus are determined by other laws, which to me seems infinitely more reasonable. (Of course there is the third option that all is physical and non-physical things do not, in fact, exist at all. But allowing that option requires there to be the fourth option that all things are non-physical and the physical does not, in fact, exist at all. But those two are hardly even worth discussing.) When I read the comment and acknowledge the audience for which it was originally intended, an 11 year old child, then I would tend to believe that what he is referring to in your highlighted sentence is the natural world which is governed by the physical laws of nature. He goes on to further elaborate that for a scientist conducting his research, prayer to a supernatural being would not be beneficial nor would it be an effective approach to take because something that is outside of the realm of nature can not have a determinate impact on the physical world. That is how I interpreted the comment but I could be wrong. I apologize for posting it as it probably is not really addressing the topic but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. So if we take, for example, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research into Remote Perception. We have scientific research, which effectively proves that Remote Perception does exists. But the phenomenon of Remote Perception directly contradicts existing physical laws. So my conclusion is that there must be Other Laws that govern Remote Perception. And since Remote Perception involves some interaction with the physical universe, but physical universe laws do not govern Remote Perception, then the laws of the physical universe must be subordinate to those Other Laws. I think you might be taking for granted that we have clearly established anything close to credible evidence that remote perception is in fact a reality. I realize you believe it is factual but not everyone accepts this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am still somewhat skeptical as I feel any intelligent person feels compelled to be to some extent. That is only reasonable. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that would revolutionize the world were it concluded to be real and controlled on some level, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence. I would also require it be more tangible and consistent. In fact a person who could utilize this ability at will and demonstrate it. That is what I need and require for myself personally. I dont know if I am just being unrealistic though. I dont think so. As to "evidence": I have not read the entire 35 pages of the PEAR report, but from what I have read, I think that it contains enough credible evidence to support their bottom line conclusion ("...the composite database yields a probability against chance of approximately three parts in ten billion."), which are some pretty "overwhelming" odds. 
(Of course, having experienced Remote Perception myself, my opinion must be considered biased. But from a "consider all possible options" viewpoint, is that any different from someone who hasn't experienced it being biased in the other direction? I dunno.) As to "an outlandish claim that would revolutionize the world": As a scientist yourself I don't need to point out how many ideas there have been, throughout history, that were considered "outlandish claims" at first, but which eventually did "revolutionize the world". (Oops! Did I just point that out? )
But I do agree that in order for it to be accepted by anyone, one of three things must happen 1) Personal subjective experience with it (experienceing it oneself) 2) Personal objective expericnce with it (observing it being demonstrated) 3) "overwhelming" amounts of second-hand evidence (But I guess that even then, you can still run into the "I'd rather be wrong with Galen than right with Harvey" mindset.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do we not accept “scientific” explanations for phenomenon as “fact”, even though those explanations are based on unproven (and often unprovable) theories??? So how then, is an acceptance of a “scientific” explanation any different from acceptance of a “spiritual” explanation for any phenomenon? (e.g. OBE, NDE, RV, et al) Isn’t it all just a matter of which “primary assumptions” you wish to believe in/agree with? Just something to think about. Having spent the bulk of my life studying and participating in the sciences I would have to disagree with you. You make is sound like science is just a bunch of guesses that could be wrong. I personally think that is an extremely naive view to take. Science dicovered radio waves and how to use an manipulate them. We use radio all the time. Is that nothing a mere speculation? Ask the Japanese who live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki if the atom bomb was just speculation. What about nuclear power generators? Are they just speculation too? I think science has proven itself through technology. The predictions of Albert Einstein's 'Theory' of Relativity have been proven to be real properties of the universe. Time really does dilate and the effects can be measured. In fact, they are observed to be the case in particle accelerators all the time. The predictions of quantum mechanics have also been observed to be the true nature of the universe. Is that mere speculation? How anyone can compare science with religion is beyond me. There is nothing in the Bible that has been shown to be true. On the contrary the things that it teaches have been shown to not be true. Jesus said that anything we ask in prayer and believe we will recieve. Well there are many people who believe in Jesus and who prayed for droughts to end, or storms to subside or change their course. It doesn't appear to be working. Either Jesus lied, or no one knows how to pray properly. It doesn't really matter which explanation you choose to believe, the bottom line is that it hasn't panned out. I don't see any comparison at all between religion and science. Science has proven itself. Religion has not. The difference is pretty vivid if you ask me. To compare science with religion is truly a joke Skyhook. I'm really surprised that you would even suggest such a thing to be quite honest about it. Also, science and religion aren't even on the same level. Science is based on investigation, experiment, evidence, experience, and even the actual measurement or construction of the results. Religion is based entirely on faith. A belief in things that are fundamentally unprovable. They aren't even in the same ballpark much less playing the same game. Thank you Abra. I was beginning to think that no one was going to speak for the “Scientific” viewpoint. Of course science is correct about “the physical universe” – simply because its sole purpose is to measure and classify physical universe phenomena. (Technology is the application of that measurement and classification.) But all that really does is point out the self-defining nature of science. It simply says “science correctly describes the physical universe because science is the description of the physical universe”. (If something didn’t correctly describe the physical universe, then by definition, it wouldn’t be scientific.) But my point was intended toward those phenomena that cannot be physically measured – like memory, thought, choice, opinion, self-determinism. 1) The “scientific” explanations all boil down to an assumption that all of those things are nothing more than chemical reactions. But that logic only leads to the inescapable conclusion that science itself is nothing but chemical reactions. Thus we have a “proof” that is just as circular as “God is omnipotent because he is God.” 2) Even if “all is nothing but chemical reactions”, the key difference between “science” and “religion” is that science teaches that those chemical reactions are “chance” whereas religion teaches that they are “directed”. But science cannot prove its own premise, nor can it disprove the “religious” premise. 3) And probably the most blatantly circular and conceited of all is the assumption that the chemical reactions are the cause (of thoughts, emotions, et all) instead of being the effect. Basically science is saying “If we can’t measure it, it can’t affect the physical universe.” Making distinctions between physical, and non physical is very misleading. There are very real particles, that could be called physical that do not interact at all with you or me, or anything in our perspective as Humans would be known as physical. Light at certain wavelengths pass right through you and me, with little to no effect in some cases, but jack up the quantity, and the shorten the wave length and it has the potential to ionize cells within your body and cause cancer. So at one energy it is harmless, and completely non interacting with 90%@ of your being . . . . at another energy it strips your cells of vital information causing them to go out of control. Everything is like this. Vibrate a particle fast enough it emits light . . . . the electrons that are bound to the atom interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, a field that does not interact with us very strongly at all . . . . but a strong enough field will align all the atoms within you and allow levitation . . . . Scale is soo important in physics, to say one thing is physical and another not physical is a very narrow way of looking at things. Narrow much like the range of the visible spectrum that we call light . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 09/24/08 12:37 PM
|
|
Making distinctions between physical, and non physical is very misleading. There are very real particles, that could be called physical that do not interact at all with you or me, or anything in our perspective as Humans would be known as physical.
I think we’re using completely different definitions for “non-physical”. What I mean by non-physical is simply, “that which cannot be detected by any physical means”. I don't think that is misleading. But if you do, then please explain to me how it is.
Light at certain wavelengths pass right through you and me, with little to no effect in some cases, but jack up the quantity, and the shorten the wave length and it has the potential to ionize cells within your body and cause cancer. So at one energy it is harmless, and completely non interacting with 90%@ of your being . . . . at another energy it strips your cells of vital information causing them to go out of control. Everything is like this. Vibrate a particle fast enough it emits light . . . . the electrons that are bound to the atom interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, a field that does not interact with us very strongly at all . . . . but a strong enough field will align all the atoms within you and allow levitation . . . . Scale is soo important in physics, to say one thing is physical and another not physical is a very narrow way of looking at things. Narrow much like the range of the visible spectrum that we call light . . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this quote Krimsa. A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936: I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. Albert Einstein The other option is that non-physical things are not "natural" and thus are determined by other laws, which to me seems infinitely more reasonable. (Of course there is the third option that all is physical and non-physical things do not, in fact, exist at all. But allowing that option requires there to be the fourth option that all things are non-physical and the physical does not, in fact, exist at all. But those two are hardly even worth discussing.) When I read the comment and acknowledge the audience for which it was originally intended, an 11 year old child, then I would tend to believe that what he is referring to in your highlighted sentence is the natural world which is governed by the physical laws of nature. He goes on to further elaborate that for a scientist conducting his research, prayer to a supernatural being would not be beneficial nor would it be an effective approach to take because something that is outside of the realm of nature can not have a determinate impact on the physical world. That is how I interpreted the comment but I could be wrong. I apologize for posting it as it probably is not really addressing the topic but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. So if we take, for example, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research into Remote Perception. We have scientific research, which effectively proves that Remote Perception does exists. But the phenomenon of Remote Perception directly contradicts existing physical laws. So my conclusion is that there must be Other Laws that govern Remote Perception. And since Remote Perception involves some interaction with the physical universe, but physical universe laws do not govern Remote Perception, then the laws of the physical universe must be subordinate to those Other Laws. I think you might be taking for granted that we have clearly established anything close to credible evidence that remote perception is in fact a reality. I realize you believe it is factual but not everyone accepts this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am still somewhat skeptical as I feel any intelligent person feels compelled to be to some extent. That is only reasonable. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that would revolutionize the world were it concluded to be real and controlled on some level, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence. I would also require it be more tangible and consistent. In fact a person who could utilize this ability at will and demonstrate it. That is what I need and require for myself personally. I dont know if I am just being unrealistic though. I dont think so. As to "evidence": I have not read the entire 35 pages of the PEAR report, but from what I have read, I think that it contains enough credible evidence to support their bottom line conclusion ("...the composite database yields a probability against chance of approximately three parts in ten billion."), which are some pretty "overwhelming" odds.
(Of course, having experienced Remote Perception myself, my opinion must be considered biased. But from a "consider all possible options" viewpoint, is that any different from someone who hasn't experienced it being biased in the other direction? I dunno.) As to "an outlandish claim that would revolutionize the world": As a scientist yourself I don't need to point out how many ideas there have been, throughout history, that were considered "outlandish claims" at first, but which eventually did "revolutionize the world". (Oops! Did I just point that out? )
But I do agree that in order for it to be accepted by anyone, one of three things must happen 1) Personal subjective experience with it (experienceing it oneself) 2) Personal objective expericnce with it (observing it being demonstrated) 3) "overwhelming" amounts of second-hand evidence (But I guess that even then, you can still run into the "I'd rather be wrong with Galen than right with Harvey" mindset.)
For what it is worth, I just happen to be one of those type people who does not accept the current collection of data that we have access to from these various studies of remote viewing. I do not believe that the evidence we have established thus far from this research justifies that an anomaly of any sort has been demonstrated, let alone a paranormal anomaly. The problem is you have shown one institute that is conducting research and has a vested interest in continuing this course of study and also acquiring their funding and grants to do so. You and I could sit here and evaluate the same set of data, and reach very different conclusions. If your conclusions are correct, then the fundamental principles that have so successfully guided the progress of science from the days of Galileo and Newton to the present must be drastically revised. Neither relativity theory nor quantum mechanics in their present versions can cope with a world that harbors the psychic phenomena so boldly proclaimed by some of these more unconventional studies. My word!  I just dont see it yet.Would I like this phenomena to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? Oh hell yeah! Are you kidding me.However I feel it imperative that these fringe-sciences undergo critical investigation before their claims can be fully substantiated.This is the only fair and responsible manner in which the scientific point of view can disseminate factual information from a lot of wishful thinking and wild, biased and fantastical claims.
I realize that you believe that you have experienced remote viewing for yourself and can lay claim to personal experience with this. I probably cant say the same unless you count incidents of deja vu that I have had occur in the past on several occasions. Quite spooky circumstances really but I just chose to move on and not worry about it. However, if you were to come to my house and go in another room while I twisted my Rubik cube and you returned to tell me I was twisting a Rubik cube, then I would want you to undergo additional tests of my own design, that's for certain.
Im not sticking to any guns.  Its just that no one has been able to show me the money thus far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Getting back to the subject on whether you would trust science or personal experience in deciding if your out of body or remote viewing experience was "real" or "delusional" I am of the opinion that you should not worry if the entire scientific community agrees with your personal conclusions or not.
But you should definitely do your best to check it out for yourself. If the experience is one you would like to repeat and investigate, then do so by all means. There are many ways to explore the human consciousness and the mind yourself. If you prefer to remain grounded in the physical consciousness, then just decide to do so. Unless there is a malfunction in your brain or unless you are on drugs, you should be able to learn to focus on the physical world and forget about the spiritual one. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Getting back to the subject on whether you would trust science or personal experience in deciding if your out of body or remote viewing experience was "real" or "delusional" I am of the opinion that you should not worry if the entire scientific community agrees with your personal conclusions or not. But you should definitely do your best to check it out for yourself. If the experience is one you would like to repeat and investigate, then do so by all means. There are many ways to explore the human consciousness and the mind yourself. If you prefer to remain grounded in the physical consciousness, then just decide to do so. Unless there is a malfunction in your brain or unless you are on drugs, you should be able to learn to focus on the physical world and forget about the spiritual one. jb I prefer to stay in that state where both exist simultaneously. It makes life an experiance of wonder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See - here is a perfect example of the point I am making. You have omitted that the God of the bible is also a JUST one, and a Rightious one. Therefore - you see biblical logic and the behavior of God as flawed.
This brings me to te point that I state over and over again. The biblical God you describe does NOT EXIST. You are forever falling short of your premises of defining the biblical God, and will forever continue to do so - because you prefer to stick to your premises - derived from Pretext -rather than bother to determine the premises that are established by Context. This is why nothing you have to say on the subject of the God of the bible is worth the time you take in writing it. Until you can establish a premise of God through context - your idea's are unacceptable, because your premise's are unacceptable. I find this confusing. Who creates the premise you speak of? So if there are any differences between two people, regarding "the premise" then they cannot have a reasonable conversation. Is that what you are saying? I find that difficult to understand from the perspective that the definition of any being has to rely on something no more tangible than an ancient document, whose translations from one language to another is enought to make all it has to reveal, suspect. On top of that one is required to have an amazing amount of knowledge just to make self-interpretations of the reading. Of course that makes it understandable why so many choose to follow blindly, the opinions and beliefs of other, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well first off, I didn’t say, not did I in any way mean to imply, either of those things. I have no idea where “the acceptance of delusion as an explanation” came from. I certainly never said that. What I was referring to was that you said that you “did not have enough evidence” and that you “made no conclusion”. Whether or not you draw a conclusion about it, your eyewitness account is evidence that something happened. I interpreted your refusal to draw any conclusion as discounting that eyewitness account as evidence of anything. Methinks you're jumping to too many conclusions. I'm not discounting the eyewitness account. All I'm saying is that I can't say what caused it. It's not unlike a UFO sighting. If someone claims to have seen a UFO, what should we conclude? Well, what is a UFO? It's an unidentified flying object. Well, clearly if they haven't yet identified what it was, then we can make no conclusions about what it was. You seem to be saying that in order for us to acknowledge that a UFO even existed, that we must be able to say something about it's origin. I acknowledge the OBE experience. I'm just saying that like a UFO, it's an Unidentified experience. I'm not denying the experience. I'm just saying that I haven't been able to determine the cause so I make no conclusions about what the cause was. Something that might help is that I have experienced delusions and hallucinations of other sorts too. So I most certainly can't rule these things out. I mean, delusions and hallucinations are certainly valid experiences. So I guess all I'm really saying is that based solely on what I 'know' delusion is probably the more likely explanation because I have experience with delusion, and I know that delusion can seem every bit as real as reality. But just the same, I can't prove that it was delusion anymore than I can prove that it was an actual OBE. So I refuse to state a conclusion with conviction. I simply confess that I don't know the answer. I don't see how that equates to the idea of denying the 'experience'. I'm not denying it, I'm simply stating that I can't verify precisely what it was. It might have been real, it might have been imagined. That's all I can say. I tend to be extremely honest with myself. To claim to know what it was when I honestly don't would just be another 'delusion' would it not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Wed 09/24/08 01:55 PM
|
|
So if we take, for example, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research into Remote Perception. We have scientific research, which effectively proves that Remote Perception does exists. But the phenomenon of Remote Perception directly contradicts existing physical laws. So my conclusion is that there must be Other Laws that govern Remote Perception. And since Remote Perception involves some interaction with the physical universe, but physical universe laws do not govern Remote Perception, then the laws of the physical universe must be subordinate to those Other Laws.
Sky, do you think science has advance to the point that they KNOW ALL the possible laws that support this universer? Do you think they have even come as far as having imagined them all? Do you give humanity that much credit? If one is going to imagine the possibilities of something like remote perception, why not imagine it as having to do with space and time? Why do people invariable attempt to assign all they cannot understand to the realm of the mystical, to magic? We do have a basis, some assumptions regarding space and time. But these are difficult concepts and require a lot of knowledge. So it makes sense, when people attempt to explain somthing like remote viewing, that they "make something up" instead of fitting into the ongoing theories that sceince has encompassed. Do you agree with this? If not why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this quote Krimsa. A child in the sixth grade in a Sunday School in New York City, with the encouragement of her teacher, wrote to Einstein in Princeton on 19 January I936 asking him whether scientists pray, and if so what they pray for. Einstein replied as follows on 24 January 1936: I have tried to respond to your question as simply as I could. Here is my answer. Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being. However, it must be admitted that our actual knowledge of these laws is only imperfect and fragmentary, so that, actually, the belief in the existence of basic all-embracing laws in Nature also rests on a sort of faith. All the same this faith has been largely justified so far by the success of scientific research. But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. Albert Einstein The other option is that non-physical things are not "natural" and thus are determined by other laws, which to me seems infinitely more reasonable. (Of course there is the third option that all is physical and non-physical things do not, in fact, exist at all. But allowing that option requires there to be the fourth option that all things are non-physical and the physical does not, in fact, exist at all. But those two are hardly even worth discussing.) When I read the comment and acknowledge the audience for which it was originally intended, an 11 year old child, then I would tend to believe that what he is referring to in your highlighted sentence is the natural world which is governed by the physical laws of nature. He goes on to further elaborate that for a scientist conducting his research, prayer to a supernatural being would not be beneficial nor would it be an effective approach to take because something that is outside of the realm of nature can not have a determinate impact on the physical world. That is how I interpreted the comment but I could be wrong. I apologize for posting it as it probably is not really addressing the topic but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. So if we take, for example, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research into Remote Perception. We have scientific research, which effectively proves that Remote Perception does exists. But the phenomenon of Remote Perception directly contradicts existing physical laws. So my conclusion is that there must be Other Laws that govern Remote Perception. And since Remote Perception involves some interaction with the physical universe, but physical universe laws do not govern Remote Perception, then the laws of the physical universe must be subordinate to those Other Laws. I think you might be taking for granted that we have clearly established anything close to credible evidence that remote perception is in fact a reality. I realize you believe it is factual but not everyone accepts this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am still somewhat skeptical as I feel any intelligent person feels compelled to be to some extent. That is only reasonable. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that would revolutionize the world were it concluded to be real and controlled on some level, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence. I would also require it be more tangible and consistent. In fact a person who could utilize this ability at will and demonstrate it. That is what I need and require for myself personally. I dont know if I am just being unrealistic though. I dont think so. As to "evidence": I have not read the entire 35 pages of the PEAR report, but from what I have read, I think that it contains enough credible evidence to support their bottom line conclusion ("...the composite database yields a probability against chance of approximately three parts in ten billion."), which are some pretty "overwhelming" odds.
(Of course, having experienced Remote Perception myself, my opinion must be considered biased. But from a "consider all possible options" viewpoint, is that any different from someone who hasn't experienced it being biased in the other direction? I dunno.) As to "an outlandish claim that would revolutionize the world": As a scientist yourself I don't need to point out how many ideas there have been, throughout history, that were considered "outlandish claims" at first, but which eventually did "revolutionize the world". (Oops! Did I just point that out? )
But I do agree that in order for it to be accepted by anyone, one of three things must happen 1) Personal subjective experience with it (experienceing it oneself) 2) Personal objective expericnce with it (observing it being demonstrated) 3) "overwhelming" amounts of second-hand evidence (But I guess that even then, you can still run into the "I'd rather be wrong with Galen than right with Harvey" mindset.)
For what it is worth, I just happen to be one of those type people who does not accept the current collection of data that we have access to from these various studies of remote viewing. I do not believe that the evidence we have established thus far from this research justifies that an anomaly of any sort has been demonstrated, let alone a paranormal anomaly. The problem is you have shown one institute that is conducting research and has a vested interest in continuing this course of study and also acquiring their funding and grants to do so. You and I could sit here and evaluate the same set of data, and reach very different conclusions. If your conclusions are correct, then the fundamental principles that have so successfully guided the progress of science from the days of Galileo and Newton to the present must be drastically revised. Neither relativity theory nor quantum mechanics in their present versions can cope with a world that harbors the psychic phenomena so boldly proclaimed by some of these more unconventional studies. My word! I just dont see it yet.Would I like this phenomena to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? Oh hell yeah! Are you kidding me.However I feel it imperative that these fringe-sciences undergo critical investigation before their claims can be fully substantiated.This is the only fair and responsible manner in which the scientific point of view can disseminate factual information from a lot of wishful thinking and wild, biased and fantastical claims.
I realize that you believe that you have experienced remote viewing for yourself and can lay claim to personal experience with this. I probably cant say the same unless you count incidents of deja vu that I have had occur in the past on several occasions. Quite spooky circumstances really but I just chose to move on and not worry about it. However, if you were to come to my house and go in another room while I twisted my Rubik cube and you returned to tell me I was twisting a Rubik cube, then I would want you to undergo additional tests of my own design, that's for certain.
Im not sticking to any guns. Its just that no one has been able to show me the money thus far.
Whereas I accept my own first-hand observation as sufficient proof, you do not deny the possiblitiy, but have no first-hand experience with it and do not accept the existing second-hand data as sufficient proof. No problem there. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do people invariable attempt to assign all they cannot understand to the realm of the mystical, to magic?
I don't see where Sky assigned remote viewing or out-of-body experience with anything "mystical or magic." Where did he do that? We do have a basis, some assumptions regarding space and time. But these are difficult concepts and require a lot of knowledge. So it makes sense, when people attempt to explain somthing like remote viewing, that they "make something up" instead of fitting into the ongoing theories that sceince has encompassed. Do you agree with this? If not why? I agree that all possible ongoing theories that science has encompassed must be explored and considered completely before going on to consider "other possibilities." (or as you put it "making something up") "Making something up" is called imagination and theory. It is the beginning of peeking outside of the box if the box mentality does not answer all the questions. I think that the phenomenon of remote viewing experienced by humans in a physical body is entirely confined within the material world of the collective universal mind. That does not mean that I think it is confined within our known 'physical universe.' The collective universal mind, in my opinion, contains the physical universe and many other different universes and worlds of different frequencies, but they are all still "material" 3-D worlds of space-time. To simplify, they are all the 'dream worlds' of a collective mind. Remote viewing is looking at things with the mind's eye. The minds eye is located in the pineal gland and in my opinion it's function is to 'see' the 'mind worlds' and it is something that also can connect us to each other telepathically. It is not part of the soul or anything "mystical." It has a physical function in a physical world of a connected consciousness. Perhaps it is like a transmitter and receiver of images stored within the collective unconscious. Just some of my ideas .
|
|
|
|
|
